Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

could zyme be making an appearance in the next nefarious rankings....?


stay tuned

dd10snoop28 wrote:could zyme be making an appearance in the next nefarious rankings....?


stay tuned

Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal

Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work

Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal

Half kidding/half serious...should we just not be able to comment on trades? Or at least not til after they're actually processed?

Not to stir the pot but just for consistency moving forward, what's the difference between this deal and say like this previous deal? https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=39135

Is it Eisley's status as a "dealbreaker"? Or would Heat previously have been able to renege on Horry deal because of that minimum contract if he were actually serious about it in the thread

offtheheezy wrote:Not to stir the pot but just for consistency moving forward, what's the difference between this deal and say like this previous deal? https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=39135

Is it Eisley's status as a "dealbreaker"? Or would Heat previously have been able to renege on Horry deal because of that minimum contract if he were actually serious about it in the thread

In the deal you provided, salaries were off and adding a min contract provided no value other than matching salaries

The Knicks/Clippers deal had a player being removed from the previous agreement which altered the deal itself. If Knicks were in the position of needing to add a min player to make salaries work, the deal should be honored IMO

Small details but important I think

Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal

Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work

Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal

To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?

Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.

Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.

I just think this sets a precedent.

pistolpetejr wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal

Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work

Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal

To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?

Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.

Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.

I just think this sets a precedent.

Precisely.

pistolpetejr wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal

Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work

Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal

To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?

Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.

Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.

I just think this sets a precedent.

The original deal is not legal so I nixes that trade for obvious reasons

There was no agreement on a reworked trade, Knicks asked if removing a player work make salaries work, that is not an agreement. If by asking if a trade works is an agreement, that sets a bad precedent

This one is definitely more gray area than most. Tough situation.

At the same time though, ultimately hard for two seasoned GMs not to know one team would go over the hard cap. So less sympathy for that point alone.